The Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism that arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world) in the 1960s has an ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda quite distinct from its self-proclaimed role as ‘liberator’ of women.

Saturday, 11 May 2013

Something that has long troubled me about the Men's Movement is its fixation on 'feminism'. Of course, it would be churlish to argue that feminists like Greer or McKinnon don't represent a serious obstacle in our path. For all that, this fixation often blinds us to the fact that many who do not overtly self-identify as feminists still hate men, or discriminate against them. Further, misandry is embedded in Anglo-American laws, customs and institutions, and inflects every facet of the male experience.

Many MRAs seem to assume that, if only these evil 'feminists' were swept away, misandry would also wither. And that women would instantly transform into sweet-natured angels, brimming over with love and kindness. I consider this a very unlikely outcome, given the all-pervasive nature of misandry in the Anglosphere. Most Anglo-American women - feminists or not - harbour a deep loathing of males, as the following article attests:

Jailed for seven years for
causing injuries described as being like 'something from a horror film'

Nicola Tedder denied charges
and claimed child was 'clumsy' and had injured himself

A
sadistic woman who jumped on a little boy's stomach after losing her
patience with him has been jailed for seven years. The savage assault led to
the child being rushed to hospital with a perforated bowel, Guildford
Crown Court heard.

Nicola
Tedder, 32, inflicted a catalogue of cruelties on the child, including plunging
her fingers into his eyes, holding his feet against a piping hot
radiator until they burnt and clasping her hands around his throat and
pushing him under water. She hit him on the head with kitchen utensils
and even rubbed his face in his own excrement if he soiled himself.
Tedder, from Haslemere, Surrey, was found guilty of causing grievous bodily
harm with intent. She was also convicted of four offences of assault causing
actual bodily harm and one of child cruelty after a five-week trial at
Guildford Crown Court.Alexia Durran, prosecuting, said: 'On one occasion she
held his feet against a radiator which was hot enough to cause burning to
his feet.

'On
another occasion, she poked her fingers into his eyes, causing him ulcers and
abrasions to his eyes. It looked like something out of a horror film.'

The
court was told that the defendant would put her hands around the boy’s throat
and shove his head under bath water as well as hitting him over the head with
kitchen utensils and rubbing his nose in his own excrement if he soiled
himself. But the most serious assault was when Tedder jumped up and down on the
youngster last year. Ms Durran said the injured boy was rushed to the Royal
Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, suffering from excruciating abdominal
pain.

'It
was as a result of his stomach being stamped upon. A doctor said he had
only seen an injury like this from a karate kick - which will give some idea of
the force used,' she said.

Ms
Durran said: 'The victim said that the defendant had jumped on his stomach with
both feet. She was wearing flip-flops at the time.'

She
said that a tear was discovered in the boy’s colon and he had to be transferred
to St. George’s Hospital, Tooting, for specialist treatment. The incident led
to Tedder being arrested and prosecuted. The defendant denied all the
charges against her. Tedder claimed that the boy was clumsy and injured
himself.

He
said it would probably never be clear why Tedder had inflicted such violence
on the child.

'You
may have a short temper or a cruel disposition,' added Judge Addison. He said
the innocent child might well suffer from long-term psychological damage as
a result of his suffering at her hands. The court was told that staff at the
victim’s school had already noticed that the boy seemed to suffer cuts and
bruising with a greater regularity than was considered normal for a
child of his age.

'One
of the staff remarked last year that the boy was walking like an old man,' said
Ms Durran.

Andrew
Turton, defending, said his client had never been in trouble with the law
before.

'She
continues to deny committing these offences which makes mitigation very
difficult,' he said.

SOURCE:
Daily Mail, September 2012

.

There is no evidence of this woman being a feminist, or identifying with 'feminism'. Still, however, she hated males to such an extent that she almost killed one. My own special contribution to the Men's Movement is the insight that, having a puritanical undercurrent, Anglo-American culture's 'default setting' is pro-female misandry. That is, misandry is not the result of feminism - instead, pan-Anglosphere feminism and misandry both spring from the same source - a puritanical meme embedded at the deepest level of Anglo-Saxon culture.

Monday, 6 May 2013

In essence, the Men’s Movement represents a ‘revolt of reality’ against
the fantastical narratives of ‘mainstream’ society. Men in the west – and
especially the Anglosphere – are endlessly told that their country is overflowing with
nubile, sophisticated girls brimming over with longing for scientists,
philosophers and aesthetes. Then, of course, reality strikes: intelligent men
soon learn that any sexualized nubiles (and there aren’t many of these, to be
honest) prefer morons and thugs to educated, intelligent males.

What are the main
bastions of these ‘mainstream’ delusions?

Firstly, the
legacy media: radio, television and the print press. These Jurassic beasts
endlessly aver that ‘everyone’ – or nearly ‘everyone’ – is happily married with
2.4 children, white, educated and living in a salubrious suburb. Perhaps these
delusions are more prevalent in Britain than the other Anglosphere countries,
but – with various modulations – the Anglo-American media remain hopelessly
out-of-touch with mass opinion and experience. Consider how American television
omits the working class, ugly people and the elderly as a matter of semi-official
policy.

What the Media likes to show us...

... and what it likes to hide.

Another
institution firmly cocooned from consensus reality is
‘mainstream’ politics. Anglo-American politicians of all stripes assume that
‘everyone’ – again, that ‘everyone’ - attends church three times a day,
has never tried drugs, is happily-married from cradle to grave and generally
believes everything authority tells them. Yet, when we study contemporary
American life, this picture does not fit. Twenty percent of Americans claim no
religious affiliations and their number is growing. Ever more Americans are
single and, as we all know, half of all American marriages end in divorce. Among
the white working class, the institution of marriage has broken down
completely. At least one in three young Americans has tried an illegal drug. Moreover,
many drug users are functional members of society, not the hapless junkies
paraded across the legacy media. And as for
the ‘hook, line and sinker’ assumptions of ‘mainstream’ politicians, most
Americans now think their government lies to them ‘most, or nearly all of the
time’, according to Francis Fukuyama.In
short, ‘mainstream’ politicians are completely detached from mainstream
American life at every level.

Apart from the
legacy media and party politics, one other feature of Anglo-American life
remains firmly embedded in the 1950s: psychiatry. Of course, anyone with a three-digit IQ detests this racist, harmful pseudo-science. For
all that, its detachment from social reality is truly worthy of comment. Scan a
psychiatric text-book and gasp at the archaic assumptions: everyone is married,
women should be pedestalized, culture does not matter and everyone should
believe everything they are told by the federal government. Amazingly, anyone
whose opinions deviate from this eccentric template is labelled either
‘anti-social’ or ‘paranoid’. Clearly, what we have here is another ‘brick in
the wall’ of institutional Anglo-American misandry.

The Upper Middle Class 'Fantasy Norm'

But why do so many aspects of Anglo –American culture
remain embedded in the 1950s? Why do so many institutions refuse to acknowledge
the reality of mainstream experience?

Firstly, the
social elites who dominate politics and the media tend to have unrepresentative
patterns of social experience – that is, they are cocooned from social reality
by virtue of private education and inherited wealth. Because of the Anglosphere’s
distinctive class system, they seldom interact with ‘ordinary’ people. Given
these circumstances, their reflexive adherence to archaic values becomes
perfectly understandable (if not forgivable).

Second, the
political establishment is a gerontocracy. Many people in the social elite grew up in the fifties and have never interacted with the social mainstream. Little wonder they still think 'everyone' goes to Church, marries for life and trusts the
government.

A third
explanation is simple propaganda.The
pan-Anglosphere elites need to keep the masses believing that Britain or
America are ‘Shangri la’ societies, infinitely better than anywhere else on
earth. The stringently-maintained fiction that Anglo women are slim, hot and
personable forms a central plank in this agenda – consider how feminist
magazines like Cosmopolitan invariably portray Anglo women as burnished,
sexualized beauties, in the face of overwhelming evidence. In this view, VAWA
is just the legal wing of Anglo-American nationalism. And far from being
revolutionaries and outcasts, feminists and White Knights are reactionary
tyrants.

Attainable for Everyone? Only in your dreams...

The last
explanation is cultural – and embraces all the others. It says: Anglo culture,
being puritanical, does not like reality very much. Especially sexual reality.
Rather than acknowledge this reality, it prefers to hide it under fairy tales
from the 1950s. The social elites remain committed to such delusions because
they are the culture-bearing class and Puritanism remains a core feature of
Anglo culture.

This explanation
also has much to offer Anglo-American MRAs. Interestingly, it locates Anglo
feminism firmly within the Establishment, with its oppressive Puritanism and
comprehensive denial of biological reality. It also explains the extensive
patronage feminism enjoys in all Anglo-American countries.

The Anglo-American Men’s Movement is presently divided into two camps. The conservative wing wish
to remove women’s rights while letting them retain their privileges. The
progressive wing, on the other hand, want women to keep their rights while
removing their privileges. What is universally accepted is the need to limit
one or the other.However, the foregoing
discussion suggests that conservatives are making a grave mistake in
representing Anglo-American feminism as ‘revolutionary’ or iconoclastic. To the
contrary, it occupies a central position in the oligarchy’s ailing pseudo-consensus.